The Act
authorizes a reasonable fee for successful representation
before this Court, not to exceed twenty-five percent of a
claimant's total past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. §
406(b). Although contingent fee agreements are the
“primary means by which fees are set” in Social
Security cases, a court must nevertheless perform an
“independent check, to assure that they yield
reasonable results in particular cases.”
Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In determining whether a
request for attorney's fees under section 406(b) is
reasonable, the Supreme Court has explained that a reviewing
court may properly consider the “character of the
representation and the results the representative
received.” Id. Importantly, the Supreme Court
acknowledged that a contingent fee agreement would not result
in a reasonable fee if the fee constituted a
“windfall” to the attorney. Id. at 808.

Here,
Mr. Murahari and Ms. Neal entered into a contingent fee
agreement, by which Ms. Neal agreed to pay Mr. Murahari
twenty-five percent of all retroactive benefits to which she
might become entitled. [ECF No. 24-4]. In his previous motion
for attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA, Mr. Murahari
submitted an itemized report documenting the 19.50 hours he
expended before this Court in Ms. Neal's case. [ECF No.
21-7]. If Mr. Murahari receives the full amount of fees he
requests, his fee for representation before this Court will
effectively total $1, 162.37 per hour. Mr. Murahari must
therefore show that an effective rate of $1, 162.37 per hour
is reasonable for the services he rendered. See
Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807.

Notably,
Mr. Murahari's requested fee results in nearly four times
the top hourly rate that is presumptively reasonable for
attorneys of his experience level pursuant to the fee
guidelines appended to the Local Rules of this
Court.[2] Although it is customary in Social
Security cases for courts to approve significantly higher
rates, Mr. Murahari's requested rate exceeds the typical
rate awarded by courts in the Fourth Circuit for
attorney's fees in successful Social Security appeals.
See, e.g., Melvin v. Colvin, No.
5:10-CV-160-FL, 2013 WL 3340490 (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2013)
(approving contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of $1,
043.70); Claypool v. Barnhart, 294 F.Supp.2d 829,
833 (S.D. W.Va. 2003) (approving contingency fee agreement
with hourly rate of $1, 433.12); Lehman v. Colvin,
Civil No. SAG-12-2160 (D. Md. July 7, 2016) (unpublished)
(approving contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of $1,
028.14). While this Court notes Mr. Murahari's effective
performance and the substantial past-due benefit award to his
client, Mr. Murahari's request for $22, 666.25 for 19.50
hours in this case would result in a windfall. Instead, this
Court finds that an award of $19, 500.00, amounting to an
hourly rate of $1, 000.00-slightly more than triple the top
hourly rate for an attorney of Mr. Murahari's experience,
would adequately compensate Mr. Murahari for the time that he
spent on this case in this Court. See Hunter v.
Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-15-3758 (D.
Md. Nov. 16, 2017) (unpublished) (approving contingency fee
agreement with hourly rate of $1, 140.41, while noting that
the requested rate was “slightly more than triple the
top hourly rate” for an attorney with eleven years of
experience).

For the
reasons set forth herein, this Court GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Mr. Murahari's motion for attorney's
fees, (ECF No. 24). This Court will award Mr. Murahari
attorney's fees totaling $19, 500.00. Because Mr.
Murahari did not receive the $3, 801.72 in fees awarded
pursuant to the EAJA, Mr. Murahari is not required to
reimburse Ms. Neal for any amount previously awarded.

Despite
the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as
an opinion. An implementing order follows.

Sincerely
yours,

Stephanie A. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge

---------

Notes:

[1] Currently, the position of
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is vacant,
and most duties are fulfilled by Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy
Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and
functions not reserved to the Commissioner of Social
Security.

[2] Although they do not govern Social
Security cases, the Local Rules prescribe guidelines for
determining attorney&#39;s fees in certain cases, which are
instructive in evaluating the reasonableness of the effective
hourly rate in this case. See Loc. R. App'x B
(D. Md. 2016). For attorneys admitted to the bar for a period
of five (5) to eight (8) years, like Mr. Murahari, the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.